If this deal had anything to do with 'saving the world from global warming' don't you think they would have considered renegotiating?

They don't want to renegotiate because they know a renegotiated deal won't happen , the reason the Paris accord is so woolly and accommodating is
because if it hadn't been it wouldn't have been agreed by the nations involved.

Too much self interest and not enough commitment to cleaning this planet up will mean no deal of any value will ever be agreed.

Carbon is a pollutant , during the industrial revolution the carbon we put into the atmosphere lowered temperatures due to it's absorption of Solar
radiation , as we have cleaned up the atmosphere temperatures have risen.

I'm more concerned with cleaning up our toxic oceans and stopping deforestation and habitat loss but a clean breathable atmosphere is equally
important , pumping toxins into it from "clean coal" is not going to achieve that.

We live in the 21st century not the 19th , coal has no place in the 21st century.

I'm more concerned with cleaning up our toxic oceans and stopping deforestation and habitat loss but a clean breathable atmosphere is equally
important , pumping toxins into it from "clean coal" is not going to achieve that.

The Paris Agreement works contrary to your stated goals then. 40 percent of Germany's annual timber production is burnt to generate
electricity, you know, cuz it's Carbon Neutral. More and more forest is being chopped down pelletized and burned.

Europe imported more than 4 million tons of wood pellets from US forests last year and wrote it all off as renewable energy, and thats a good thing?
Thats your guys' crazy global warming mandate in action, and it's only going to get worse.

I know what the goals of the agreement are but they are not my goals , you seem to think I support the Paris deal but I don't , the Paris agreement
isn't worth the paper it's written on but I can see why they did it , the Paris agreement is a foundation to be built on in the future , no foundation
no future deals.

There are many causes of climate change and they mostly link back to us or our activities.

I know what the goals of the agreement are but they are not my goals , you seem to think I support the Paris deal but I don't , the Paris agreement
isn't worth the paper it's written on but I can see why they did it , the Paris agreement is a foundation to be built on in the future , no foundation
no future deals.

There are many causes of climate change and they mostly link back to us or our activities.

Heard yesterday that the U.S. has reduced emissions 16% since pulling out of the Kyoto agreement. I think one of the Bush's did it, and caught hell
from liberals. But it was the right thing to do. The USA doesn't NEED any of these other countries to help us get our own house in order! We save
taxpayer dollars by doing it ourselves.

Paris agreement was just the start, there's more that needs to be done.

America can and will lead the way forward, but it's never going to be able to do that when it's hobbled by the UNCFFF.

You control a nations energy policy, you control that nations economy. Does America wish to be owned by the UN?

Libs heads will be exploding and the media will be foaming at the mouth, but the path forward is clear, cut ties with the UNFCCC. C02 is not a
pollutant, and Trump has the ability to undo all the damage Big Eared Barry has done in the past.

First on the wishlist is axing the Paris deal.

Second is a call to “defund” the UN’s climate body (UNFCCC), which receives around US$4 million a year from the US government.

Third, Trump should “overturn” Obama’s clean power plan, which regulates power plant emissions, underpinned by a 2009 court ruling that said
greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.

Fourth, the US should amend the Clean Air Act – which was used by lawmakers to regulate CO2 – to ensure it can no longer do so.

Fifth, Trump should repeal the Clean Power Plan’s CO2 standards for power plants.

Sixth, Trump and Congress should oppose all carbon taxes (Note: incoming US secretary of state Rex Tillerson is a fan of a revenue neutral carbon
tax).

Seventh, Trump should scrap US calculations of what the “social cost of carbon” could be.

As we have seen here in these forums, the lefties cannot even tell us why it was bad to leave the Paris Agreement, they cannot even explain what the
Agreement was supposed to do.

Watch Tucker Carlson destroy the Mayor of Miami Beach.

Keep in mind that there has been NO acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, this has been ongoing for 150 years and is not connected to C02 in the
atmosphere. The Mayor plays the flooding up as a talking point, when the reality is that they should have been preparing for this decades ago, the
sea level was rising, they knew this.

That must be why they [Germany] are burning 40 percent of their timber production to generate electricity.

Sure about that?

40% total renewable by 2025. Timber (biomass, including waste) is included with hydropower at only 11%.

Electricity generated from renewable sources has tripled in Germany over the past 10 years. Based on Energiewende goals, the share of power
generated from renewable sources is set to increase to 40% to 45% by 2025 and to more than 80% by 2050. Most of Germany's expected growth in renewable
electricity comes from solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind, which currently provide 20% of Germany's total electricity. Hydropower and other renewables
such as biomass and waste provided 11% of Germany's overall electricity supply in 2015, but these shares are not expected to grow
significantly.

40% (by 2025, it is currently around 31%) biomass wood and wood waste PLUS other biomass, of which wood is 11% according to the data I linked to.

I read wiki earlier, and the citations. And as I mentioned (and the links I provided) biomass, which includes wood, also includes waste, byproducts,
and other bio-material. This does not mean they are cutting down forests to use as an energy source, it just means wood biomass which includes waste
(pellets, sawdust, scraps, etc) PLUS other biomass is a source.

The EU is cutting down forests and burning them to generate electricity. Why? Because it's CARBON NEUTRAL.

What message does this send to third world countries? Yea, lets cut down the rain forests boys, it will put us under the targets for the Paris
Agreement! Get it done! Fire up the Chainsaws!

I see you're trying to downplay the dangers of deforestation but the fact remains, it is a clear and present danger. I'd rather see natural gas get
used than see the land denuded of tress. Guess you're of a different opinion.

Moreover, 25% of Germany wood production is also used as a biomass feedstock. The German Federal Research Centre for Forestry and Forest Products
claims that there are also reserves which may assist in enlarging the part of forestry in biomass production. Agriculture is the main source of
rapeseed oil, which is used for the production of biodiesel and making substrates for the production of biogas.

You may be right but as far as the Accord goes, my thinking is they needed us more than we need them and the freak out has to do with getting
less money and the globalization movement being dissolved

People conveniently seem to forget that we all live on planet earth, and it's not about what's "best" for the US or American business
interests.

Additionally, as the once leader of the supposed free world, we have an obligation to be a leader in stewardship, not selfishness.

Yea, lets
just start giving tax dollars away right? Why don't you just donate to UNICEF or something if you feel that way, I'd like to fix my country first.
The UN can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, America IS leading the way, emissions are down.

Without the earth, or being a good steward thereof, you would have no country to fix. THAT was my point in the comment to which you replied. Your
country is part of the Earth, not vice versa.

To the rest of the comment, it's simply " 'Muric First! Not my tax dollars! MAGA!" without looking at the larger issue (yet you seem to care about
deforestation?), but a more selfish perspective, which I mentioned.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.